The proposed class includes “model aircraft owners” who registered model aircraft inaccordance with the process provided by the Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft (the Registration
IFR), 14 CFR part 48. The class complaint arises from the May 19, 2017 decision in Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017), in which the D.C. Circuit vacated the small unmanned aircraft
registration requirement to the extent that it applied to certain model aircraft that meet the definition and operational requirements of section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,
Public Law 112-95 (now also provided in 14 CFR part 101), which is discussed above in this issue.

Since the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, on July 3, 2017, the date of the formal mandate, the FAA published on its website, the process by which owners of model aircraft operated in compliance with section 336 may
seek reimbursement of the $5 registration fee and delete their registration. Additionally, tocomply
with the court’s order inTaylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the FAA will not use the
identifying information from model aircraft owners whose registrations have been deleted. On October 20, 2017, FAA filed a motion to dismiss forlack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s response isdue by November 3, 2017, and thegovernment’s reply brief is due
byNovember 13, 2017.

On June 12, 2017, in the Eastern District of Arkansas, another
case was filed related to the D.C. Circuit’s May 19, 2017 decision in Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089,
which vacated the small unmanned aircraft registration requirement for certain model aircraft. Reichert v. Huerta, No. 17-389.

The proposed class for the new litigation included “model
aircraft owners” who registered model aircraft in accordance with the process provided by the Registration
and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft (the Registration IFR), 14 CFR part 48.

On July 3, 2017, FAA published on its website, the process by
which qualifying model aircraft owners could seek reimbursement of the $5 registration fee
and delete their registration. In addition, to

comply with the D.C. Circuit Court’s order in Taylor v.
Huerta, FAA announced that it would not use the identifying information from model aircraft owners
whose registrations have been deleted.

On December 12, 2017, after the government filed a motion to
dismiss and Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the government’s motion, the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law. The NDAA included a provision
which restored the small unmanned aircraft registration requirement that was vacated by the D.C. Circuit.

After FAA published a set of Questions and Answers on its
website clarifying the registration obligations for unmanned aircraft owners who had registered
their aircraft but had not requested deletion of their information and a refund,
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Eastern District of

Below you can download the main briefs,
namely Taylor's initial brief, the FAA's reply, and Taylor's answer (note that the case has been consolidated with EPIC's ridiculous attempt to challenge Part 107 because it didn't
include privacy rules, which is not the FAA's job to do - please see bottom of page for EPIC's brief).

Just over six weeks ago, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a stunning reversal of the
Federal Aviation Administration's drone hobby registration rule in a case brought by model aircraft enthusiast and lawyer, John A. Taylor. The Court determined in that case that the FAA's
rule, as it applies to model aircraft, "directly violates [a] clear statutory prohibition." That prohibition is contained in a law passed by Congress, known as Section 336 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Court's decision at the time, however, was not final and the FAA's registry remained in effect. The Court gave the US Department of Justice - the
agency that represented the FAA in the case - time to decide whether it wanted to appeal the decision or request a rehearing before the full Court.

Today, the Court issued its final order implementing its May 19 decision to "vacate the Registration Rule to
the extent it applies to model aircraft." This means that the FAA's drone registry - at least for now - is officially dead. A request to the FAA for information on what will happen to the
registry and whether fees collected by the illegal registration requirement will be refunded in light of the Court's decision was not immediately responded to. This article will be updated with
any additional information.

The Court's reversal of the FAA's registration rule may not be the final word on whether hobbyists will be
required to register their drones in the future. At least one bill pending before Congress would reinstitute the registration requirement for model aicraft flyers.

The FAA is providing the following updated information regarding the Small UAS Registration and Marking interim final rule
as a result of a recent decision(PDF) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the small UAS registration program.

The court's decision invalidated the registration requirement as it applies to certain model
aircraft that meet the definitional and operational requirements provided in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act(PDF). Owners of model aircraft which
are operated in compliance with section 336 are not required to register. Owners of all other small unmanned aircraft, including newly-purchased unmanned aircraft not operated exclusively in
compliance with section 336, remain subject to the registration requirement. The FAA continues to encourage voluntary registration for all owners of small unmanned aircraft.

The FAA is working on a final rule with respect to registration and marking that will
implement the court's decision. In the meantime, if you are an owner operating exclusively in compliance with section 336 and you wish to delete your registration and receive a refund of your
registration fee, you may do so by accessing a registration deletion and self-certification form(PDF) and
mailing it to the FAA at the address designated on the form. Owners who already received a refund during the initial grace period are not eligible to receive a refund. This form has been submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget for approval of the information collection.

A recent
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit regarding the small UAS registration program left a lot of people wondering about one thing: Where’s that $5 I spent on the registration going? All in all, the FAA
collected somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 million through more than 820,000 registrations, so it was a valid question
to ask.

On March 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held oral argument in Taylor v.
Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir.). In this case, John A. Taylor, a model airplane operator, and the same petitioner identified in the small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) rule litigation, sought
review against the FAA in the D.C. Circuit, challenging: (1) an Interim Final Rule (IFR) establishing a web-based registration process by which small unmanned aircraft owners can satisfy the aircraft
registration requirements; (2) a Clarification and Request for Information related to UAS registration; and (3) Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57A, which provides guidance to persons
operating model aircraft and refers to FAA restrictions on aircraft operating within the
Washington, D.C., Flight Restricted Zone, and Special Flight Rules Area. The IFR and Clarification and Request for Information challenges present similar issues and were briefed together by the
government. The petitioner argued that the IFR is outside ofFAA’s authority, claiming the following:
(1) “model aircraft” are not “aircraft” subject to FAA’s regulatory authority becauseCongress created
a class of unmannedaircraft called “model aircraft” that are notaircraft; (2) the IFR is not consistent with section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 although Congress also
requires, by statute, for all aircraft to be registered and registration is not a new requirement; (3) the IFR is arbitrary andcapricious; and (4) FAA’s decision toproceed through an interim final rule rather than through notice-and-comment rulemaking was not justified by good causenotwithstanding the agency’s argument thatan unprecedented number of unmanned aircraft were purchased over the 2015 holiday season and into 2016. The government disputed each of these points.

On May 10, 2017, the court issued a decision vacating the UAS registration rule to the extent that it applies to
model aircraft operating in accordance with sec. 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) (FMRA). The court found that the rule requiring modelers to register under part
48 violated the statutory prohibition (in section 336 of the FMRA) on promulgating rules/regulations regarding model aircraft. However, the vast majority of model aircraft purchases do not quality as
modelers under Section 336. FAA, through its website, has advised the hundreds of thousands of model aircraft owners who do not qualify for an exception under Section 336 that they must register
their aircraft with FAA. FAA has set up a refund and record deletion procedure for those who do qualify as modelers
under Section 336.

On August 3, 2017, Robert C. Taylor, represented by John A. Taylor (petitioner in UAS registration litigation in
D.C. Circuit), filed a complaint and motion for interim relief the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking relief regarding model aircraft registration deletion and refund of model
aircraft registration fees. Taylor v. Huerta, No. 17-2191 (D. Md.).

The relief requested substantially mirrors that sought in the unsuccessful motion for contempt in Taylor v.
Huerta, Cons. No. 15- 1495, 16-1008, 16-1011 (D.C. Cir.), discussed above in this issue. In response to this latest challenge, the government opposed the motion, arguing that the court lacks
jurisdiction over the matter, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits, and that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an actual and imminent irreparable injury.

Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, reframing the claims in his initial complaint to allege
constitutional violations and adding Privacy Act claims. A hearing on the interim relief took place August 23, 2017.The court denied Plaintiff’s motion.Further, during the hearing, the court
asked Defendant to provide a letter brief (no more than 3 pages) by September 1, 2017,identifying the
deficiencies in Plaintiff’samended complaint.

Plaintiff further amended his complaint on September 15, 2017, by dropping the Privacy Act claim and restating the constitutional claims. These revisions do not change the theme of his argument
whichis that the FAA’s interpretation of the D.C. Circuit’s decisionTaylor v. Huerta is unlawful.The government’s positionthroughout the briefing has been that the court
lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter and further, that Taylor is not entitled to any relief. Briefing is expected to be completed in November 2017.

Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration: Two Related Challenges with Respect to Agency Implementation of D.C. Cir. Decision

On December 18, 2017, Robert C. Taylor voluntarily dismissed a
complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, which

had sought equitable relief for model aircraft registration
deletion and refund of model aircraft registration fees. Taylor v. Huerta, No. 17-2191 (D. Md.) Taylor
was represented by John A. Taylor, the petitioner in Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089, in
which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated FAA’s small unmanned aircraft registration requirement to the extent it applied to certain model aircraft that met the definition and operational requirements of section 336 of FAA Modernization and

Reform Act of 2012.

The District Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for TRO or PI,
but permitted him to file an amended complaint, which he did on September 15, 2017. On December
12, 2017, after the government’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law. The NDAA included a provision which
restored FAA’s small unmanned aircraft registration requirement

that was vacated by the D.C. Circuit. On December 18, 2017,
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his case.

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a new complaint in the
D.C. District Court, Taylor v. FAA, No. 18-35, in which he alleges violations of the Privacy Act and
the constitutional right to privacy, unjust

enrichment, and illegal exaction on behalf of himself and a
class of similarly-situated plaintiffs based on FAA’s implementation of the D.C. Circuit’s decision. Several
days later, Plaintiff filed a motion for class

certification. On February 8, 2018, the court granted the
government’s motion to stay briefing on class certification pending the government’s motion to
dismiss.

On March 13, 2018, the government filed a motion to dismiss
arguing, among other things, that Plaintiff lacks standing because at the time the complaint was filed,
FAA’s authority to require registration for all small unmanned aircraft operators had been restored by the
NDAA. As a result, FAA’s decision regarding how to implement the D.C. Circuit’s decision, which vacated
in part the small unmanned aircraft registration requirement, was no longer necessary or
in effect. In addition, Plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted
for all of his claims, because after the NDAA was enacted, all small unmanned aircraft owners, including Plaintiff, are required to register their aircraft.

Plaintiff filed his opposition to the government’s motion to
dismiss on March 27, 2018 arguing Plaintiff has standing, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction,
and Plaintiff has stated claims upon which relief

- December 2016, two wedding guests (Kneena Ellis and Kelly Eaton) are suing groom (Barry Billcliff) and Searles Castle (venue) over drone injury caused by another guest, even though groom was not
operating the drone himself

- Ellis suffered a laceration requiring more than 20 stitches and a concussion

- Eaton suffered orbital and nose fractures, concussion

- they both claim they sufferent permanent physical and emotional injury and are suing for negligence

- venue claimed they did not grant permission to have Billcliff fly a drone

The pro bono attorney designated by
the judge to represent the Haughwouts is Mario Cerame of the Randazza Legal Group. Mr. Cerame said that at the heart of his challenge to FAA authority is the FAA’s definition of “aircraft” which he
contends “is crazy” and would cover any contrivance that flies, including “paper airplanes, bullets and flags.” At a hearing in March, Judge Jeffrey Meyer ordered the parties to further support their
arguments regarding FAA authority over small drones. Oral argument is set for July 6 at 10 am at the federal court house in New Haven. Mr. Cerame admits that for his clients to win, the Judge would
have to determine that the FAA’s position was “obviously wrong.”

February 17, 2016 - TechFreedom v. FAA - filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia arguing that
the UAS registration rules put in place in December 2015 violate a federal law that prohibits the FAA from regulating recreational UAS. (read the complaint below)

Kentucky resident David Boggs filed a suit in the United States District Court of Western Kentucky asking the court to "define clearly the rights of aircraft operators and property owners" as they
relate to unmanned aircraft.

The lawsuit stems from an incident last year that gained national media attention in which a Hillview, Kentucky resident shot down an unmanned aircraft being flown by Boggs, claiming that the UAS
had trespassed and invaded his privacy.

Although the shooter initially faced criminal charges, those charges were eventually dismissed by a state court judge. On October 26, 2015, Kentucky District Court Judge Rebecca Ward dismissed the
criminal charges, saying that "he had a right to shoot" at the aircraft. Boggs, on the other hand, claimed that he was approximately 200 feet above the property at the time it was shot down and did
not view or record the defendant's property.

James Mackler , Boggs' legal counsel said: "The tension between private property rights and the freedom to use the national airspace is important to both the unmanned aircraft industry and
the general public. Property owners deserve to be free from harassment and invasion of their privacy. Likewise, aircraft operators need to know the boundaries in which they can legally operate
without risk of being shot down. This lawsuit will give clarity to everyone."

The lawsuit, challenging the FAA registration of small UAS that applies to hobby and recreational users as being illegal, was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on December
24, 2015 by a model aircraft enthusiast, Maryland resident, and insurance attorney, John A. Taylor on his own behalf.

Taylor is requesting that the court "issue an order declaring that the [FAA's registration rule] is void" and prohibited by Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. He alleges
that that section specifically prohibits the FAA from promulgating any new rules or regulations regarding model aircraft if they are flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Taylor requested an emergency stay of the FAA's registration requirement while the case winds its way through the legal process. That request was denied by the Court of Appeals on December 24,
2015, stating that Taylor "has not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review."

The case will now proceed according to a schedule issued by the Court, with the next filing deadline January 27, 2016.

EPIC sued the Federal Aviation Administration for failing to establish privacy rules for
commercial drones as mandated by Congress. Congress required the FAA to develop a "comprehensive plan" to "safely" integrate drones into the national airspace. In 2012, over 100 organizations,
experts, and advocates joined EPIC in petitioning the FAA to establish privacy protections prior to the deployment of commercial drones in the United States. In 2014, the FAA responded to EPIC's
petition, claiming that drone privacy implications "did not raise an immediate safety concern." The FAA further stated, "the FAA has begun a rulemaking addressing civil operation of small unmanned
aircraft systems in the national airspace system. We will consider your comments and arguments as part of that project." But in 2015 when the FAA announced a rulemaking on commercial drones, the
agency purposefully ignored privacy concerns, stating that privacy "issues are beyond the scope of this rulemaking."

Electronic Privacy Information Center(EPIC) and John Taylor (the same
petitioner who challenged the Registration IFR) challenged FAA’s Small
Unmanned Aircraft System Final Rule (small UAS rule), issued by the
Secretary and the Administrator.

Electronic Privacy Information v. FAA, Nos. 16-1297, 16-1302
(D.C. Cir.) The small UAS rule provides the regulatory framework to enable the operation of
small UAS (less than 55 pounds) in the national

airspace system. EPIC previously sued FAA on the small UAS
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), alleging that FAA was statutorily required to include
privacy regulations in the small UAS rule, and that

the agency erred by not addressing privacy in that rulemaking.
EPIC's previous lawsuit was dismissed as premature because an NPRM is not a final agency action subject
to judicial review. In its current petition, EPIC again challenges the omission of
privacy regulations from the small UAS rule and argues that FAA is statutorily required
to address privacy with regard to small UAS.

John Taylor also seeks judicial review of the small UAS rule.
In his brief, Taylor argues that the small UAS rule exceeds the FAA’s statutory authority to the extent that
it regulates hobbyists who do not satisfy all the criteria specified in section 336 of
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 (the Act). He further asserts that the FAA has exceeded its authority by regulating operations that are not
in “air commerce” in so much as the final rule regulates low-altitude small UAS

operations. Taylor also argues that the notification to
airports and the FAA-created B4UFLY app used to assist in that notification violates the
Paperwork Reduction Act although Petitioner failed to file comments on the NPRM, and none
of the other commenters raised this issue.

The agency’s response brief argues that EPIC lacks standing in
this case because it has not suffered any programmatic harm as a result of the small UAS rule and
its members cannot show an imminent risk of

their privacy being violated by a small UAS operated under the
small UAS rule. The brief also explains that EPIC’s arguments are meritless because (1) the Act did
not require the FAA to address privacy, and (2) since the FAA is a safety agency with a safety mission that does not include privacy between individuals, it was not arbitrary and capricious for the agency to decline to regulate this area in the small UAS rule.

EPIC’s reply continues to attempt to stretch the FAA’s
authority by expanding the definition of hazard such that it would reach to privacy-related harm. EPIC argues
that because the agency is directed under Section 333(b) of Pub. L. 112-95 to determine
which types of UAS create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, that the term hazard
must be interpreted in an all-encompassing manner. With respect to standing, EPIC counters that the FAA has caused it harm by impairing its privacy protection advocacy,

which includes public education about privacy risks associated
with small UAS operations. EPIC also counters that its members can show injury because
members’ declarations assert that drone surveillance

will necessarily increase simply because of such members’
proximity to test sites.

Regarding Taylor, the agency’s response brief argues that
Taylor lacks standing to raise his arguments about modelers operating under Section 336 because
the small UAS rule did not impose any restrictions on those operations. All the rule did was exempt Section 336 operations from the small UAS rule and prohibit such operations
from endangering the safety of the NAS, which the agency was permitted to

do by Section 336(b). With regard to Taylor’s arguments about
non-336 hobbyist operations, the brief explains that there is no statutory basis as to why the agency
cannot regulate non-336 hobbyists in the same manner as any other small UAS. Taylor’s reply includes arguments similar to those provided in his opening brief.

The Department filed a notice of supplemental authority with
the court after the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 (NDAA) was enacted, which
restored the requirements of the small UAS

registration rule to its state prior to the D.C. Circuit’s
decision vacating the portion of the rule applicable to model aircraft operated in accordance with Section
336.

The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on January 25, 2018 at
American University.

The panel was Judges Sentelle and Randolph (by phone), and
Chief Judge Garland.

Contact Me

Get Social with Me

Legal disclaimer

The information on this website is for educational purposes only and DOES NOT constitute legal advice. While the author of this website is an attorney, she is not your
attorney, nor are you her client, until you enter into a written agreement with Nilsson Law, PLLC to provide legal
services.